Big Bang (Page 4)

2006-10-06 12:22 PM

in reply to: #562776

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC

Subject: RE: Big Bang

drewb8 - So can belief in a higher power be somewhat attributed to a distrust of human-based morality?

That's an interesting question.

For me, it took a more positive path. For example, it seems like common sense to me that we have unalienable rights. From there it's a question of where those rights came from, and voila, it seems reasonable that there is a higher power.

Coming at it from the path of distrusting human nature, I don't know.

I'd say, though, that even if someone does not believe in a higher power, the fact that a strictly materialist view seems to inevitably lead to the possibility that we have no unalienable rights ought to give them pause. It may be that the faith based belief in unalienble rights may be better for them in the long run, even if they don't believe that it stems from a higher power.

In other words, they don't have to believe in God in order to enjoy the gifts that Faith teaches us come from God.

drewb8

2006-10-06 1:38 PM

in reply to: #562826

Master

4101

Denver

Subject: RE: Big Bang

dontracy - 2006-10-06 11:22 AM

drewb8 - So can belief in a higher power be somewhat attributed to a distrust of human-based morality?

That's an interesting question.

Coming at it from the path of distrusting human nature, I don't know.

In other words, they don't have to believe in God in order to enjoy the gifts that Faith teaches us come from God.

Now that I look at the question it does seem a little off. Seems to me more that people people aren't pushed into faith due to the otherwise lack of a moral basis as they are drawn to it.

The revelation of the possibility of there not being inalienable rights did give me pause and get the little hamster wheel turning, although I suppose another conclusion could be that there are in fact no inalienable rights and that we need to be extra vigilent to ensure that our rights are not usurped.

But I think that last line is terrific. Is that yours?

2006-10-06 1:47 PM

in reply to: #562776

Runner

Subject: RE: Big Bang

drewb8 - 2006-10-06 12:30 PM
So can belief in a higher power be somewhat attributed to a distrust of human-based morality?

This may sound cynical in some way, maybe not....

I don't know that it's a distrust of human-based morality, so much as it is another way of defining where our morality comes from.

Some would argue that man has no innate morality. He is amoral, a blank canvas, so to speak. So where do "morals" come from? I think that morals are partly driven from a survival instinct. Things like not killing each other or stealing from each other are considered moral statements, but also are tied to survival of one's kind. But, man is more than just an animal. He can think, he can reason, he has free will. So, morality must therefore be MORE than just survival instinct, because man can THINK about these instincts and what drives him. Morality, however, is different than the concept of rights. One can be a moral person, yet live in captivity. Perhaps as a way of trying to enforce a certain level of morality or control, the concept of God was introduced. As we have seen in past debates, it's hard to argue with an intangible. And if God is the source of morals, it lays to rest some level of questions related to our moral code.

I think I rambled at the end. If I didn't make sense, I'll try to clarify.....

2006-10-06 2:10 PM

in reply to: #562947

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC

Subject: RE: Big Bang

drewb8 - Is that yours?

This?

In other words, they don't have to believe in God in order to enjoy the gifts that Faith teaches us come from God.

Yea...

2006-10-06 2:11 PM

in reply to: #562957

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC

Subject: RE: Big Bang

Scout7 - I think I rambled at the end. If I didn't make sense, I'll try to clarify.....

It's pretty clear, but go on anyway...

drewb8

2006-10-06 2:15 PM

in reply to: #559232

Master

4101

Denver

Subject: RE: Big Bang

Well to bring this full circle, perhaps morality is a result of evolution - moral traits in people were selected for, immoral traits were discontinued. I don't know enough about biology to know if other species have moral codes they adhere to - that is to say - if a human performed these actions we would label them as enforcing a moral code. A scene from March of the Penguins comes to mind where one of the distraught mothers who lost her egg tries to steal one from another penguin and all the other penguins come to her aid to protect her child from the thief. Many times when you hear about a person helping someone in danger they say they did it because "it was the right thing to do", but the actions are the basically the same. Not sure where I'm going with this - am I saying that there is no such thing as morality? Hmm. I'll have to think about this rather than this stream of conciousness thing I have going on now.

2006-10-06 2:31 PM

in reply to: #562976

Runner

Subject: RE: Big Bang

Lemme see where I was going with things......

Ok, so, morality comes from two places: our instinct for survival, and our ability to reason over those instincts. So, we can not only accept that we can or can't do certain things, but we also understand the WHY behind we can or cannot do said things. Make sense?

So, over time, as man has reasoned over his various actions, and developed an understanding of why those actions are important, he has developed a sort of ideal as to how to act. A set of morals, or ethics, or behaviors. This idea can be traced through the evolution of various philosophies and religions. For instance, I think that it's no small feat that various disparate groups, who had no previous contact with each other, have developed to some extent or another, certain basic ideals that are similar. Not killing needlessly, not stealing, etc, etc. So there is a sort of core set or rules that man has based all other rules on. Then we developed more complex societies, and this required more complex moral codes, and ways to enforce those codes. Hence we get laws. Evolution of morality into our legal system.

As for the idea of inalienable rights, perhaps I misspoke when I said that rights are based on people. What I mean to say is that we accept that slavery is wrong. WHY do we feel that way? Because it is a "right"? If it were an inalienable right, then no one should be able to take it from us. However, as has been evidenced, it can and does get taken. So it's not an inalienable right. Our society views slavery as being morally wrong, so we abolished it. But, it also caused a civil war. I do not have a "right" to life. I exist, I live. But I may not be doing so tomorrow, or even later today. So is it a "right" then? The concept of "rights" is a construct of man. However, one could view these rights as something to protect. We guard our rights ferociously, to the point of death if necessary. Perhaps our idea of rights is based on our own collective idea of morality. Morally, we feel that all should be treated equally, that all deserve respect. So we express that as right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

2006-10-06 2:44 PM

in reply to: #562993

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC

Subject: RE: Big Bang

Drew and Scout, you've put out some interesting points about the possibility of the evolution of morality. It's good stuff to chew on.

Scout7 - "? If it were an inalienable right, then no one should be able to take it from us. However, as has been evidenced, it can and does get taken.

Just one point to make on that. I think an enslaved person still possesses the right to liberty. It's just that they can't exercise that right while they're enslaved. I think the right itself is still inherent to their being.

So Jefferson was saying that even though the colonists could not exercise their right to liberty, they still possessed it since it is unalienable.

2006-10-06 2:49 PM

in reply to: #563009

Runner

Subject: RE: Big Bang

dontracy - 2006-10-06 3:44 PM

Drew and Scout, you've put out some interesting points about the possibility of the evolution of morality. It's good stuff to chew on.

Scout7 - "? If it were an inalienable right, then no one should be able to take it from us. However, as has been evidenced, it can and does get taken.

So Jefferson was saying that even though the colonists could not exercise their right to liberty, they still possessed it since it is unalienable.

But if someone takes it away, then it's not really a "right", in the sense that we have layed out; it would be a privilege.

hangloose

2006-10-06 4:42 PM

in reply to: #559232

Crystal Lake, IL

Subject: RE: Big Bang

I'm probably barging in like a bull in a china shop with a moronic comment, but here goes.

Whether you call them inalienable rights (which as demonstrated are neither inalienable nor rights), or faith based morality, or whatever I think that it begins as a simple matter of practicality and reason.

Man has learned (heh-is learning), at some stage in our development, that by protecting those who need protection and growing and nurturing a society we are stronger as a group than as individuals. Man (in the general sense, obviously) realized he can strive for a better life by adhering to a code of behavior and expecting others to adhere to it as well. I won't go around killing everyone who ticks me off in return for the expectation that everyone I tick off will not kill me. I think, at it's very root, it is that simple. The rest of it flows from there.

2006-10-09 7:38 AM

in reply to: #563127

Runner

Subject: RE: Big Bang

hangloose - 2006-10-06 5:42 PM

I'm probably barging in like a bull in a china shop with a moronic comment, but here goes.

That's sorta what I'm talking about in terms of survival instinct. In the wild, most animals of the same species do not kill each other when they fight. It's mostly a bunch of showboating. Not to say that they never kill each other, and some species are much more aggressive about it than others, but particularly among mammals, species seldom kill within the species. I think that our sense of morals extends beyond simple surivival because we are able to think about the reasons for survival, and develop a higher understanding of our existance.